Every Tuesday afternoon, 35 of the College’s top administrators and faculty gather in Lamont Forum Room to deliberate the fates of undergraduates whose lives behind Harvard’s ivy gates lie in the balance. With a red and yellow “Meeting In Progress. Please Do Not Disturb” sign hanging from the door, the room houses the Administrative Board—the committee charged with enforcing undergraduate academic regulations and standards of social conduct.

Though often viewed as a committee focused on dispensing punishment, the Ad Board made over 2,300 decisions last year—only six percent of which concerned disciplinary action.

The Board’s purpose, as described in its annual ”Guide for Students,” is to foster the educational and personal development of undergraduates. While the board does administer punitive decisions, many of its members are quick to distinguish it from the legal system—citing the educational value of students coming before the board to learn about the consequences of their actions.

Barry S. Kane, Faculty of Arts and Sciences registrar and Ad Board member, says the board consistently asks the same question in deliberating the particulars of a case: “Is that going to be something that will ultimately benefit the student and help the student get through Harvard College on a better pathway?”

Dean of the College Benedict H. Gross ’71 says he is currently considering the launch of a review of the Ad Board in the fall. The College has yet to specify the exact nature of such a review.

But it remains to be seen how the board’s dual role as both educator and disciplinarian would fare under scrutiny.

THE HEARING: HEARD?

When Justin G. Hurwitz ’07 first faced the Ad Board last semester for a disciplinary hearing, he says he felt intimidated as he was brought before a room packed with administrators and faculty.

“It was by far the scariest thing that ever happened to me,” says Hurwitz.

Even after a brief talk with his resident dean and receipt of the Ad Board’s official guide, he says he was not prepared for the hearing to come.

“I was pretty unclear about the whole thing,” he says.

Facing a disciplinary charge, Hurwitz appeared before the full board for the proceedings.

All 35 members of the board—including Gross, three professors from the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the 13 Allston Burr resident deans, and other administrators—attend the weekly hearings.

While Hurwitz describes his experience as “terrifying,” David B. Belanger ’09 says he felt comfortable in front of the authoritative body.

“In terms of the actual meeting with the board, it was very nice,” says Belanger, who also faced a disciplinary charge. “I felt like they were really ready to make an educated decision.”

While Harvard students face a 35-member committee, comparable bodies at many of the University’s peer institutions are typically much smaller.

The Princeton University Faculty-Student Committee on Discipline has 13 members, the Yale College Executive Committee has 10 members, and the Stanford University Board on Judicial Affairs has 15 members.

Yale’s Executive Committee only formally convenes for a hearing under two conditions: when the student being reviewed does not agree that the charge is valid or in cases—such as sexual assault—that affect the entire community.

Jill Cutler, assistant dean for academic affairs at Yale College and a member of the committee, says that the severity and sensitivity of sexual assault cases necessitate a broader range of input.

“It involves the community to such an extent and the penalty would be so severe that the full committee should have the responsibility of deciding,” Cutler says.

In all other cases, the penalty is decided by a subcommittee of three individuals.

While the size of the Harvard College Ad Board may be intimidating for some students, Kane says that students benefit from the more comprehensive discussion of its many members.

“When the board is deliberating, you have such a wide diversity of people sitting around the table that everyone has such a different view for a case,” says Kane.

ADVISING: ADVISED?

As a body that treads a fine line between disciplining undergraduates and supporting them, the Ad Board uses the resident deans as a bridge between the board and the charged student.

“I worked really closely with my resident dean and he was incredibly supportive,” says Belanger. “I met with him for two hours a day for about six days.”

According to the Ad Board’s “Guide for Students,” the College expects the student to first discuss the incident with his or her resident dean and then to return with any further questions.

Although all resident deans are members of the board, they are not allowed to vote on cases that involve their students.

Yet even this arrangement has led some to question the dual purpose of the resident dean—who is expected to serve the needs of both the board and the student.

Harvey A. Silverglate, a Boston lawyer who co-founded the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and has represented students charged by the Ad Board, calls the resident dean’s role a “conflict of interest.”

“[The resident dean’s] loyalty is entirely to Harvard, which determines the [resident dean’s] recommendations to further his or her education and career,” Silverglate says in a statement.

Belanger says that he was not clear about his resident dean’s specific role in his hearing.

“I believed that he was used as a measure of my credibility, which isn’t necessarily bad, but it has to be more transparent,” Belanger says.

Current Ad Board member and Resident Dean of Quincy House Judith F. Chapman says that a resident dean can provide a complete picture of his or her student that would not otherwise come to light at the hearing.

“For almost all students, it helps that there is actually someone who knows them who is there to talk them through the process,” she says.

ORGANIZATION: ORGANIZED?

In taking on the deliberation of academic cases, the Ad Board distinguishes itself from similar bodies at other institutions.

The Ad Board evaluates petitions for enrollment, academic performance reviews, and disciplinary matters. It is unique in its multi-pronged arrangement.

The boards at Princeton, Yale, and Stanford only deliberate disciplinary cases, and do not field petitions and academic reviews.

Even Harvard’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences (GSAS) does not direct academic reviews and routine petitions to its Administrative Board, according to Kane, who has served on both the College and GSAS boards for the past four years.

Although other institutions separate disciplinary cases from academic ones, Gross posits that there is merit to maintaining the threefold function of the College’s Ad Board.

“Frequently a student in academic trouble encounters other issues,” Gross says in a statement.

EDUCATION: EDUCATED?

While the Ad Board also reviews non-disciplinary cases, peer institutions with strictly disciplinary bodies still view their boards as serving an educational purpose.

“We are very mindful of trying to maintain certain ethical stands of behavior, to the extent we have a disciplinary function,” says Stanford University Professor Eamonn Callan, co-chair of Stanford’s Board on Judicial Affairs.

“But we are doing so at an institution with an educational purpose,” Callan adds.

While boards dealing with undergraduates promote their dual emphasis on discipline and education, graduate school boards often have a different mission.

At Harvard Law School, the Administrative Board frequently acts more in accordance with a court of law—including the opportunity for legal counsel—because of its members’ legal backgrounds, according to Harvard Law School Dean of Students Ellen M. Cosgrove.

While Cosgrove acknowledges that the goal of the Law School’s board can be education as well as discipline, “stakes for law students are particularly high as disciplinary proceedings must be disclosed on bar applications,” she says in a statement.

Kane agrees that it is difficult to compare the GSAS and College boards.

“There are big differences between the two boards because there are two different populations of students,” Kane says.

Even at the College, where many students say they learned from their experience, it remains to be seen whether students will reform their actions.

“I would be very, very careful to never break a rule again,” Hurwitz says.

“But I will probably accidentally break a rule again,” he adds with a chuckle.

—Staff writer Madeline W. Lissner can be reached at mlissner@fas.harvard.edu.